N00b question regarding two-weapon fighting

[Scorponok]

Hi Giants,

I got a n00b question regarding two weapon fighting.

A fighter who has STR of 10 is carrying a longsword. Normally, he gets a +8/+3 to his attacks. He gets two attacks per standard action. He swings his right hand sword twice, and does 1d8 damage on his first attack and 1d8 damage on his second attack.

Now he adds his two-weapon fighting feat, and buys a second longsword for his left hand. Now, he takes a -4 penalty for both attacks. Him attacking with both longswords will make him have attack bonuses of +4/-1.

Would it not be better to not take this feat and just use the single longsword and do two attacks? If he has already taken this feat, can he turn it on and off, i.e. decide to NOT use two weapon fighting during combat?

At any point, does this fighter get a third attack due to him having two attacks after reaching level 6 and two weapon fighting?

[Pancritic]

Hi Giants,

I got a n00b question regarding two weapon fighting.

A fighter who has STR of 10 is carrying a longsword. Normally, he gets a +8/+3 to his attacks. He gets two attacks per standard action. He swings his right hand sword twice, and does 1d8 damage on his first attack and 1d8 damage on his second attack. He gets one attack using a standard action and two with a full-round action.


Now he adds his two-weapon fighting feat, and buys a second longsword for his left hand. Now, he takes a -4 penalty for both attacks. Him attacking with both longswords will make him have attack bonuses of +4/-1.Incorrect. Your off-hand attack is made with your full attack bonus, with all applicable modifiers. His right hand would be +4/-1 and his left hand would be +4.


Would it not be better to not take this feat and just use the single longsword and do two attacks? If he has already taken this feat, can he turn it on and off, i.e. decide to NOT use two weapon fighting during combat? He can. Even if you are holding a longsword in each hand, you're not forced to use two-weapon fighting.


At any point, does this fighter get a third attack due to him having two attacks after reaching level 6 and two weapon fighting?Yes. Fighting with two weapons adds one attack with your off-hand weapon, but makes all your attacks more difficult to hit.

[Socratov]

the fighter (on a full attack) gets with TWF and a long sword: +4/-1(main hand)//+4 (offhand)

But yes, the fighter could just ignore the feat, drop his offhand weapon (or at least not swing it?) and use his usual +8/+3.

If you want iteratives/AoO's on your off-hand, you will need to take the appropriate feats to gain them.

I hope this answers your question :smallsmile:

edit: dammit, swordsaged again! :smallannoyed:

[Demorden]

Would it not be better to not take this feat and just use the single longsword and do two attacks?
IMHO, yes. I've read that from a math point of view TWF is not ideal.
And unless you improve TWF with feats, what you have is a bunch of miss.



If he has already taken this feat, can he turn it on and off, i.e. decide to NOT use two weapon fighting during combat?
Sure, unless his left hand is glued to the sword lol.



At any point, does this fighter get a third attack due to him having two attacks after reaching level 6 and two weapon fighting?
Yes, via feats improving TWF. Edit: I misunderstood. The third attack comes at lv6, sure, 2 with one hand, one with the other. I you want MOAR attacks with your second hand, you have to improve TWF.

[Scorponok]

Ok thanks Giants! This explains it. The guy who is helping me out tried several times to explain it and in the end I guess all the other stuff we were talking about just got jumbled together and he gave up out of frustration.

Can the fighter also have the option of just using the two-weapon fighting feat and not bothering with the second attack in his main hand? So that would be, I think, +4/+4.

Also, when he decides to do three attacks, how does it work? Does he swing with his right longsword twice and then once with the left longsword, or does he swing right-left-right? i.e. does it matter, up to the DM or up to the player?

In any case, it seems that if he swings right-left right, then it would be +4/+4/-1 but if he swings right-right-left then it would be +4/-1/+4.

[Gwendol]

Your iterative attacks are made with the primary weapon, while the off-hand attack (at the highest bonus) is made with the off-hand (or secondary) weapon.

Why would you not bother with the iterative attack? But yes, you can not attack on a full attack.

[Pancritic]

From the SRD:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first. So in your example, either right-right-left or left-right-right.

If you want, I suppose you could dispense with the -1 attack, but I can't really see why you would. An extra attack is always an extra attack.

[Socratov]

From the SRD:So in your example, either right-right-left or left-right-right.

If you want, I suppose you could dispense with the -1 attack, but I can't really see why you would. An extra attack is always an extra attack.

if you hold to the highest to lowest you would have to choose between

right-left-right or left-right-right (choosing to strike first for the first blow at highest bonus, then whatever's left)

[Pancritic]

Iterative attacks from BAB are made with your primary weapon (in this case, held in the right hand) and in order from highest attack bonus to lowest. If you have an off-hand weapon, you can choose to strike with it either before or after you make your primary attacks.

[Greenish]

Iterative attacks from BAB are made with your primary weapon (in this case, held in the right hand) and in order from highest attack bonus to lowest. If you have an off-hand weapon, you can choose to strike with it either before or after you make your primary attacks.I've always read it to mean that you get your attacks from highest BAB to lowest, in order, and since your off-hand attack (or attacks) will be made at the same BAB as (some of) your main-hand attacks, you get to choose which ones come first.

So, with 6 BAB and ITWF, you'd have two attacks at full BAB (sans TWF penalties) and two attacks at -5, and for the attacks made with same BAB, you get to choose which one comes first.

So, you could do:

MH, OH, MH, OH
MH, OH, OH, MH
OH, MH, OH, MH
OH, MH, MH, OH

But not, for example, MH, MH, OH, OH, because the second iterative of the main-hand would be made with lower attack bonus than the first iterative of the off-hand, and couldn't thus go before it.

[Pancritic]

Interesting. I read it differently, since, as quoted before:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.Emphasis mine.

Attacks gained from BAB are made with a weapon held in the primary hand. Since the next sentence states:
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. To me, it logically follows that you strike either:

Main hand attack(s) -> off hand attack(s)

or

Off hand attack(s) -> main hand attack(s)

I wonder if how you resolve multiple attack order has any actual gameplay ramifications.

[Socratov]

Interesting. I read it differently, since, as quoted before: Emphasis mine.

Attacks gained from BAB are made with a weapon held in the primary hand. Since the next sentence states: To me, it logically follows that you strike either:

Main hand attack(s) -> off hand attack(s)

or

Off hand attack(s) -> main hand attack(s)

I wonder if how you resolve multiple attack order has any actual gameplay ramifications.

the thing is, regardless if you can use iteratives or not (determined by feats imp. TWF and greater TWF), secondary attacks due to TWF or MWF follow the bab rule. It can have ramifications: for example: if you use lightning maces and threathen a critical (mind the threathen part) you get an extra attack as a duplicate. so the order in which you apply BAB and attacks does matter since you will get an attack at that bonus.

Besides, it is more logical if you have ever tried to swing sticks dual wielding... You will notice it is easier (from a movement perspective) to swing one hand after another (building a rhythm as it were). I know that argument has nothing on the rules, but the whole BAB rule supports it/. If you strike you have backswing before you strike for the first time. Iteratives are revisits of that first strike, limiting the amount of backswing, and thus chance to hit through that armor (or AC) signified by a 5 drop in to-hit for each revisit, or iterative. So the simulation argument, even though not named in the books, seems logical.

[Greenish]

Interesting. I read it differently, since, as quoted before: Emphasis mine.

Attacks gained from BAB are made with a weapon held in the primary hand.That's a possible interpretation, certainly.


I wonder if how you resolve multiple attack order has any actual gameplay ramifications.There are certain abilities that might be affected, the first one to come to my mind being the Pearl of Black Doubt stance from ToB, that increases your AC every time an enemy misses you until the start of your next turn. Making some of the weaker attacks before stronger ones should increase the stance's effectiveness, if I'm figuring this right.

Still, even if that is so, it's a tiny effect on a niche case.

[Namfuak]

My understanding was that the only time an attack was considered "off-hand" was if it was made using the two-weapon fighting action. So, if you had for example a longsword in one hand and whip in the other, you could use your first iterative to use the longsword and your second to to use the whip. A more common case might be a glaive and a spiked gauntlet.

[Gwendol]

Not true. Take a double weapon; one end is the primary weapon, while the other is the off-hand.

[Curmudgeon]

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. This rule is conditional on gaining iterative attacks, but its application is unconditional. Thus if your BAB is +6 or greater, you're required to make all attacks in order of decreasing AB. Contrast with:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make those attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. That one word alteration would have restricted the scope of the rule.

[Scorponok]

That's a possible interpretation, certainly.

There are certain abilities that might be affected, the first one to come to my mind being the Pearl of Black Doubt stance from ToB, that increases your AC every time an enemy misses you until the start of your next turn. Making some of the weaker attacks before stronger ones should increase the stance's effectiveness, if I'm figuring this right.

Still, even if that is so, it's a tiny effect on a niche case.

Interesting that you bring this up since in the campaign I am DMing, there is a Warblade. :)

Having the option to NOT do the attack with the lowest bonus would be good in this case. You don't want the Warblade's AC to keep increasing for each miss. Anyways, I don't think the enemy NPCs would do this because unless they know he is a Warblade, they'll swing away wildly.